|
| . |
|
Matchstick Men 2003 |
Review by Jonathan Cornwell |
Directed by Ridley Scott
PG-13, 116 min. (mature themes, violence, sexuality, language) |
 |
Starring: Nicolas Cage, Sam Rockwell, Alison Lohman, Bruce McGill, Bruce Altman, Steve Eastin, Jerry Hauck
Producers: Jack Rapke, Ridley Scott, Steve Starkey, Ted Griffin, Sean Bailey
Screenplay: Nicholas Griffin, Ted Griffin, Eric Garcia (novel)
Cinematography: John Mathieson
Distributor: Warner Brothers
Released: 9.12.03 (Wide) |
Rating:
 (out of ) |
Ridley Scott continues to show us his range as a director with Matchstick Men, a film so pleasantly calculated that
it's one of the most enjoyable pictures of the year. Although it's a con man flick, it's also an intense character study of
a man who must confront his own fears and subconscious needs in order to grow as a person. Scott, whose recent films
(Black Hawk Down, Hannibal, Gladiator) have been somber works of drama, has also proved that he can delve
into quirky, off-beat material as effectively as other, more radical, directors specialize in. Matchstick Men provides the viewer
with likable characters, humor, drama, suspense, and a little Hitchcockian misdirection thrown in for good measure. It adds
up to one heck of a mainstream film - the kind of picture that restores, at least temporarily anyway, one's faith in Hollywood.
The film is an amalgamation of three distinct yet dependent storylines that involve one man, Roy (played by Nicolas Cage, who
seems to be making a career out of this kind of character), a con artist that justifies his profession by taking only money
that people voluntarily give him, thus appeasing his conscience and the implied amoral implications. His partner, Frank (Sam Rockwell),
marvels at his intuitive genius at the con game, yet also acts as a kind of caretaker for Roy's incessant neurotic obsessions.
Roy is obsessive-compulsive, agoraphobic, given to panic attacks, and most of all a neat freak. Together, Roy and Frank
target a rich businessman, Frechette (Bruce McGill), for their biggest con to date. Meanwhile, Roy is dealing with his
shortcomings a la Dr. Klein (Bruce Altman), a psychiatrist that prescribes him medication and peaks his interest in his long
lost daughter, Angela (a luminous Alison Lohman), the product of his ex-wife, who wants nothing to do with him. Angela's
introduction is obviously the best medicine Roy could hope for in order to restore dignity to his life, although at first he
cowers and weaves away from her advances. It's not long before she learns of her father's profession and predictably wants
to learn from the master. But will it end in disaster for Roy and Frank's big con?
Clearly, Cage, who purchased the rights to the film before Eric Garcia's novel was published, relishes this role - a man who
must defend his existence on three fronts: mental, physical, and emotional. Cage is an actor without abandon, giving himself
completely to his character. Here, he somewhat reprises the quirkiness that a similar dual role in last year's zany Adaptation
provided - the chance to play a character over-the-top and with imagination, rather than through someone else's vision. His
Roy is very reminiscent of Jack Nicholson's similarly-afflicted Melvin Udall in As Good As It Gets, a film that also finds solace
for its character in a newfound relationship.
Some find his earnestness excessive, but I see an actor that needs to be challenged in order to provide the incentive to improve
himself and broaden his horizons. Certainly his Roy is one of the best roles of the year.
It's also obvious that Cage's manic Roy will be tempered by the lovely tenderness of Lohman's Angela, a girl who seeks
a relationship with her genetic father to complete her transformation from girl to woman. Lohman (a hard to believe 24-year-old playing a 15-year-old) burst onto the scene in
last year's uneven White Oleander, but her performance stood out nonetheless. She brings a warmth and contagious
enthusiasm to a role that must be well-acted in order to provide effective contrast to Cage's neurosis. In a delightful scene
we see Angela relishing a burger, mayonnaise dribbling down her chin, as she wonders aloud why Roy can't simply enjoy
the simpler pleasures in life. Because Lohman is so appealing as an actor, we can easily overlook the few inconsistencies that
arise out of this relationship. Her influence is quickly felt as Roy's tuna and cigarette diet soon turns to Ben & Jerry's ice
cream and numerous pizza deliveries as the backdrop for their bonding sessions. Though Cage gives a solid performance,
it's Lohman that steals the show with one of the year's most likable characters.
Scott is so effective at meshing these distinct characters and themes that we hardly notice the implausibilities that arise from
the film's intricate storyline. This is a credit to the exceptional screenplay, by Nicholas and Ted Griffin, which is at the same
time both slyly subtle and egregiously obvious, but in a good way. They weave the subplots with dexterity - as each
storyline gives way to another, they incredibly one-up one another, which in effect builds an unnoticeable tension that
prepares the viewer for the delightfully unexpected twist that rocks the film to its core.
The supporting characters, Rockwell and McGill, are also perfectly cast because they have to be in order for the story
not to draw unnecessary attention to their discrepencies. One can't help but wonder if it wouldn't be interesting to revisit
these characters at some point down the road, not only for obvious plot purposes but because of the considerable chemistry
that they build between one another. And, although we're thrown a bone in the final scene in order to bring some levity
to the devastation that is wrought, it would be enjoyable to see Roy and Angela again, if only for those late-night bonding
sessions. Matchstick Men is a film that plays with our emotions but earns that right because it competently portrays
a story and characters that involve us in their lives and inexplicable predicaments.
© 2003 Jonathan Cornwell
|
|
 |
 | Masterpiece - Film perfection |
 | Excellent - A Must See |
| Good - Highly Recommended |
| Fair - Worth seeing |
| Average - Viewable, but not recommended |
| Below average - View at own risk |
| Poor - Avoid at all costs |
| Very poor - An embarassment to the film industry |
| Zero | Awful - One of the worst films ever made |
© 2000 - present ReelCriticReviews
All movie pictures are registered trademarks and/or copyrights of their respective holders
Their use on this site is for informational purposes only and does not imply ownership
|
